Apologies for what, exactly?You could start with an apology for misrepresenting what I said. Then, after you have established your own integrity and humility we can move towards the rest of it. But let's start there, right?
You could start with an apology for misrepresenting what I said. Then, after you have established your own integrity and humility we can move towards the rest of it. But let's start there, right?
From your post #51: In my opinion, all too often scientists do, in fact, treat science as dogmatic belief.
No matter how I read that, it still looks like a blanket characterization of scientists as being beholden to "dogmatic beliefs". Therefore, stating so for the purpose of refuting your statement is not "setting up a strawman" as you later said. If that is not what you meant, then you should perhaps revise the statement.
That statement is also why I challenged you on how many scientists you actually know (MDs don't count). It is my belief that someone who actually knows scientists would find it difficult to characterize us in such a manner. Considering that we (scientists) only make up a fraction of the ~1% of the population that holds a doctoral level degree, I think that most people do NOT know a scientist and we therefore make easy targets for any kind of anti-science zealot.
Remember that essay you linked from www.sciencebasedmedicine.org? If you want a good insight into how scientists think, and how we revise what we think as we accumulate evidence, you might spend some time reading various essays at that blog. It illustrates very well how we do NOT treat science like a "dogmatic belief".